On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 10:05:55PM +0200, Max Kellermann wrote: > On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 7:24 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Also, I don't know why checkpatch is happy with all the > > > > const struct attribute_group *const*groups; > > > > instead of > > > > const struct attribute_group *const *groups; > > I found out that checkpatch has no check for this at all; it does > complain about such lines, but only for local variables. But that > warning is actually a bug, because this is a check for unary > operators: it thinks the asterisk is a dereference operator, not a > pointer declaration, and complains that the unary operator must be > preceded by a space. Thus warnings on local variable are only correct > by coincidence, not by design. > > Inside structs or parameters (where my coding style violations can be > found), it's a different context and thus checkpatch doesn't apply the > rules for unary operators. Ok, checkpatch support isn't always required, we can notice that changes like this obviously are not sane and shouldn't be allowed just by reading them :) thanks, greg k-h
